In the last 100 years, Bolivia has claimed Chile's sovereign maritime exit, but there are other options in neighboring countries

With 12 votes in favor and 3 against, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) put an end to the legal process that Bolivia filed in 2013 against Chile demanding a sovereign maritime exit. The decision of the ICJ concluded that Chile "is not obliged to negotiate a sovereign access to the sea for the Plurinational State of Bolivia". However, the court asked in turn not to interpret that decision "as something that prevents us from seeking a way to engage the dialogue on this issue in both nations".

Read in english: ¿Qué alternativa le queda a Bolivia tras el fallo de La Haya?

Since the late nineteenth century, Bolivia and Chile have been in the midst of dialogue and conflict claiming a territory, which after the War of the Pacific in 1883, was granted to Chile. A part of southern Peru and another part of Bolivia was stipulated as sovereign territory of Chile, after signing the Peace Agreement between the nations voluntarily signed in 1904. It was then when Bolivia officially lost 120 thousand square kilometers of its nation and its exit to the sea.

Since then, and on numerous occasions, Bolivia has reclaimed the territory arguing that its absence affects trade, growth, and economy of the country. In recent statistics presented by the Bolivian government, it was indicated that its exports are 60% more expensive than those of Peru and 57.7% more expensive than the Chilean ones.

Despite these arguments and the other needs expressed by Bolivia in the 2013 lawsuit, the Hague Tribunal stipulated that Bolivia's position has no basis to compel Chile to negotiate access to the sea and ratifies the Chilean government's argument that the borders were agreed in 1904 in a unanimous and voluntary manner by the parties.

What alternative does Bolivia have now?

Although in the last 100 years Bolivia has claimed to Chile the sovereign maritime exit, there are other options in neighboring countries that could provide an alternative to open cargo terminals, create hotels, factories, and the construction of profitable commercial ports.

Bolivia Mar, Peru

The port of Ilo in Peru is one of the least known alternatives, but considered by some analysts as the most realistic. Twenty-six years ago, the governments of Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty in which a coastal strip five kilometers south of Peru would be legitimately granted to La Paz for 99 years to create new commercial ports and reduce the ties acquired with the coasts.

Despite the initiative of both countries Bolivia Mar, as the territory is known, is nothing more than an abandoned beach that never attracted tourists or gave rise to the commercial plans that were expected. Some experts believe that Bolivia never exploited the territory ceded by Peru fearing Chile would never delivered the requested.

You may also be interested: Bolivia: Why people reject the new headquarters of UNASUR?

On the other hand, the conditions of the Bolivia Mar prevent an abundant flow of trade in the small port. According to research carried out by the BBC, it is estimated that at least 300 million dollars would be needed to invest in wave protection roads. To which both Peru and Bolivia refuse to argue that there are no guarantees that Bolivian exports and imports will recover the investment.

Puerto Busch, Paraguay

In 1937, Bolivia and Paraguay signed a treaty that allowed the Andean country to have an exit through the Atlantic Ocean. Although Bolivia exports minerals from said port and despite the antiquity of the signing of the treaty, the progress in Puerto Busch remains minimal. Some experts consider that the lack of agreements between the State and Bolivian private property have delayed the takeoff of said port.

For its part, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay have granted alternatives to Bolivia such as the cession of ports, the creation of duty-free zones and port facilities to carry out the exit of products along the neighboring coasts. However, Bolivia has not made use of these benefits in an optimal way arguing that the distances that must travel to the ports are very extensive and this increases the costs of the goods.

As stated by the ICJ, with its decision on the maritime demand of Bolivia against Chile, the latter nation is not obliged to negotiate access to the sea but can contemplate the possibility of a new dialogue or seek intermediate solutions as already Chilean President Sebastián Piñera had mentioned it on previous occasions.

In the same way, Piñera said after the Hague Tribunal decision that "the ICJ has done justice and has put things in their place", by determining "clearly and categorically, that Chile has never had, nor has and has never breached any obligation in international law or in its relations with Bolivia".

LatinAmerican Post | Krishna Jaramillo
Translated from “¿Qué alternativa le queda a Bolivia tras el fallo de La Haya?”

Listen this article